Warrior General Games

LOL, doesn't like to be attacked and then throws an elbow at LDS and JW. yelollolo1

Originally posted by seahawk10
LOL, doesn't like to be attacked and then throws an elbow at LDS and JW. yelollolo1



What elbow? Wasn't intentional, I was talking about the broader unGodder public. I think the guys here were mostly just kidding around. Just needed to point out that factoid that the media would not bother to tell the public about.

And I could care less about being attacked, I would just then have to respond. I am more than capable of rendering anyone here mincemeat in a debate. However this is not the place for it, so I think it should be avoided.

Originally posted by yello1
But I have to say its been my experience that the various varieties of the followers of the UnGod are the most likely to offend in that regard. For some reason people who pretend their entire religious view point is supposed to be about Not Knowing somehow feel compelled to make sure everyone else shares their certainty that Not Knowing means there is no God. Some basic insecurity going on there I think, or kiddies who just really resented going to church on Sunday. But as we see here, some folks feel a need to toss religious attacks around for no particularly good reason. Far more than the other way, unless you live down the street from the Mormon Temple or the Jehova Witness Church I suppose.

But anyway, yes, its annoying.

I bolded the important part, and really the part I would like to go on about...

Now, I'm hoping I won't step on your view with this one, but saying UnGod, to me is like saying that only your religion counts.. Which isn't showing tolerance in anyone else's religion, And also, I'm a Theology Minor (I needed something fun to do with English, and be able to argue with my inlaws) So debating religion without getting personal, is something I TRY to pride myself in, although like all other P&R debates, lines gets crossed... Either way, I'd really like it if there was no religion personally, then there would be less fighting in the world over who's Deity is correct..

Anyways - my rant is done..

besides, we have God on our team too http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=1290826

Originally posted by Talcion
I bolded the important part, and really the part I would like to go on about...
.

What I will do in reply is italics your points and respond to each in turn


Now, I'm hoping I won't step on your view with this one, but saying UnGod, to me is like saying that only your religion counts..

Nope.

What I am pointing out with that choice of words is two fold - firstly to get past the LOL division of atheists and agnostics. Very few people are actually agnostic in these debates since true agnostics literally do not have an opinion. Most who call themselves agnostic walk and quack like an atheist duck. But the second and prime reason for that choice of words is to call it like it is - atheism is a religion, with a God. Just that the God is a NonGod. Its that because an atheist says there is no God, a point not supported by any logic at all since logic (science etc) can never tell you what it all came from, in the end all science will come to a point beyond which remains only the spiritual choice of faith in what we want to believe brought it all into being (the What Created the Big Bang, and what created THAT chain of turtles on turtles). So for someone to say they KNOW is to say in fact that they have FAITH that there is no God, which is in and of itself no different from having a religion. So believers in the UnGod is how I sum that up.

Which isn't showing tolerance in anyone else's religion

Since I suspect that Gods word is behind to some degree most of man's major religions now and in the past, that is simply not true.

Which is not to say I tolerate them all. I have a mental check list if you will by which I winnow out the patent frauds and psychopaths.

And also, I'm a Theology Minor (I needed something fun to do with English, and be able to argue with my inlaws) So debating religion without getting personal, is something I TRY to pride myself in, although like all other P&R debates, lines gets crossed...

The stronger the opinions the more sensitive the feelings, and someone who took it upon himself to study it is likely to have strong opinions, I suspect. I'ma gonna wager you cross that line more than you think hehe. BScience degree here btw, theology is a new found hobby.

Me I get personal with it only when its personal in return, mostly. See the 500 year old Prod bigotries rant above. Its something I didn't fathom until late in life when some protestants I know (Baptists in particular who seem to have added a Pope hating book to the bible somewhere) went on deep and bizarre rants about Priests and Nuns and what have you for a long and sordid period of time, not bashing me because they had no idea (I am not very religious in day to day activities) and were just talking. The way a racist will go on about blacks when he thinks he is among good old boys.

Anyway as a history buff, it struck me that what I was hearing was pretty much right out of Elizabeth I's playbook on propaganda to support her war with Spain and France during the reformation wars, not to mention the crushing of Catholicism in England and the stealing of its wealth and power along the way. Since the people I were talking to were decidedly not scholarly, and no fans of history, it dawned on me that this stuff had been handed down to them from their families, apparently for centuries of their English-Protestant line. Once my eyes opened to that, I began to see how pervasive the attitudes being expressed were and how they worked their way into the general discourse in the country now and throughout our history. From the not so subtle lynching of Irish in Philadelphia and elsewhere, the entire anti-immigration moves to stop the influx of papists from Ireland and Italy and Poland (didn't see much of that when the proportionately larger German Protestant one took place almost a century before) to the bigotry against John Kennedy's run that required him to speak up and say he would not follow the Popes commands if elected, through scathing attacks on catholic practices like large families, down to the present day hatred of Mexicans and the public fervor for news of Priest abusers while comparatively ignoring the more prevalent non-priest molesters. I could go on, but my keyboard is tired. But suffice it to say that when I realized all of that went on, was going on, and was utterly unremarked I decided to point it out whenever it rears its evil little head. Its my little Papist Civil Rights movement, without all the marching or protesting.

Similarly when an atheist starts attacking those of faith, I will generally step to the plate to knock his silliness out of the park as well. That is because their entire premise is that "science proves I am right" and that their position is logically superior. But the logic is in fact squarely AGAINST them because their position is founded upon not one shred of evidence, and is a subject upon which science has no bearing and never can or will. Thats not usually personal, though, unless they get snide about it.

Either way, I'd really like it if there was no religion personally, then there would be less fighting in the world over who's Deity is correct..

As I said, that is the trendy thing to say, and probably has been since the Crusades among some sets. But the historical scientific reality is that if religion was bad for man, he would not have it.

Yello, I agree with you that science cannot explain many fundamental things like where the Big Bang originated from - according to science we shouldn't even exist. However, I do think that it's more logical for most people to believe in atheism than most religions. Sure, there are logical holes in every "religion", but atheism would appear to have the least. I mean, Christiantiy said that the world was only several thousand years old and that the earth was the center of the universe. Both have been proved completely incorrect by empirical evidence. I'm not even an atheist but I believe that it's the most logical choice of "religion" for most learned people.

Originally posted by yello1
What I will do in reply is italics your points and respond to each in turn


Now, I'm hoping I won't step on your view with this one, but saying UnGod, to me is like saying that only your religion counts..

Nope.

What I am pointing out with that choice of words is two fold - firstly to get past the LOL division of atheists and agnostics. Very few people are actually agnostic in these debates since true agnostics literally do not have an opinion. Most who call themselves agnostic walk and quack like an atheist duck. But the second and prime reason for that choice of words is to call it like it is - atheism is a religion, with a God. Just that the God is a NonGod. Its that because an atheist says there is no God, a point not supported by any logic at all since logic (science etc) can never tell you what it all came from, in the end all science will come to a point beyond which remains only the spiritual choice of faith in what we want to believe brought it all into being (the What Created the Big Bang, and what created THAT chain of turtles on turtles). So for someone to say they KNOW is to say in fact that they have FAITH that there is no God, which is in and of itself no different from having a religion. So believers in the UnGod is how I sum that up.

Which isn't showing tolerance in anyone else's religion

Since I suspect that Gods word is behind to some degree most of man's major religions now and in the past, that is simply not true.

Which is not to say I tolerate them all. I have a mental check list if you will by which I winnow out the patent frauds and psychopaths.

And also, I'm a Theology Minor (I needed something fun to do with English, and be able to argue with my inlaws) So debating religion without getting personal, is something I TRY to pride myself in, although like all other P&R debates, lines gets crossed...

The stronger the opinions the more sensitive the feelings, and someone who took it upon himself to study it is likely to have strong opinions, I suspect. I'ma gonna wager you cross that line more than you think hehe. BScience degree here btw, theology is a new found hobby.

Me I get personal with it only when its personal in return, mostly. See the 500 year old Prod bigotries rant above. Its something I didn't fathom until late in life when some protestants I know (Baptists in particular who seem to have added a Pope hating book to the bible somewhere) went on deep and bizarre rants about Priests and Nuns and what have you for a long and sordid period of time, not bashing me because they had no idea (I am not very religious in day to day activities) and were just talking. The way a racist will go on about blacks when he thinks he is among good old boys.

Anyway as a history buff, it struck me that what I was hearing was pretty much right out of Elizabeth I's playbook on propaganda to support her war with Spain and France during the reformation wars, not to mention the crushing of Catholicism in England and the stealing of its wealth and power along the way. Since the people I were talking to were decidedly not scholarly, and no fans of history, it dawned on me that this stuff had been handed down to them from their families, apparently for centuries of their English-Protestant line. Once my eyes opened to that, I began to see how pervasive the attitudes being expressed were and how they worked their way into the general discourse in the country now and throughout our history. From the not so subtle lynching of Irish in Philadelphia and elsewhere, the entire anti-immigration moves to stop the influx of papists from Ireland and Italy and Poland (didn't see much of that when the proportionately larger German Protestant one took place almost a century before) to the bigotry against John Kennedy's run that required him to speak up and say he would not follow the Popes commands if elected, through scathing attacks on catholic practices like large families, down to the present day hatred of Mexicans and the public fervor for news of Priest abusers while comparatively ignoring the more prevalent non-priest molesters. I could go on, but my keyboard is tired. But suffice it to say that when I realized all of that went on, was going on, and was utterly unremarked I decided to point it out whenever it rears its evil little head. Its my little Papist Civil Rights movement, without all the marching or protesting.

Similarly when an atheist starts attacking those of faith, I will generally step to the plate to knock his silliness out of the park as well. That is because their entire premise is that "science proves I am right" and that their position is logically superior. But the logic is in fact squarely AGAINST them because their position is founded upon not one shred of evidence, and is a subject upon which science has no bearing and never can or will. Thats not usually personal, though, unless they get snide about it.

Either way, I'd really like it if there was no religion personally, then there would be less fighting in the world over who's Deity is correct..

As I said, that is the trendy thing to say, and probably has been since the Crusades among some sets. But the historical scientific reality is that if religion was bad for man, he would not have it.




I commend you on being able to have a religious debate without mud slinging - No offense to you, but that is rarely seen..

Either way - I suppose the reason that everyone slings mud at the Christian religion, is because it is the easiest mark of them all - I'm guilty of it as well, but with my faith - I do have a small problem with Christians anyways (As I said up there somewhere, I'm Wiccan (Olde Style)

Originally posted by Talcion


I commend you on being able to have a religious debate without mud slinging - No offense to you, but that is rarely seen..

Either way - I suppose the reason that everyone slings mud at the Christian religion, is because it is the easiest mark of them all

No, untrue.

The reason why people sling mud at the Christian religion is because of it's inherent hypocrisy, which dates back all the way to it's very beginnings. The recent scandal with the priests is just another example in a long, distinguished line of fuck ups by a church that can only do about 50% of it's charter correctly.

And Yellow -

Originally posted by yello1

As I said, that is the trendy thing to say, and probably has been since the Crusades among some sets. But the historical scientific reality is that if religion was bad for man, he would not have it.


This is absurd. 4th grade "if...then..." logic.



Originally posted by yello1
Anyway as a history buff, it struck me that what I was hearing was pretty much right out of Elizabeth I's playbook on propaganda to support her war with Spain and France during the reformation wars, not to mention the crushing of Catholicism in England and the stealing of its wealth and power along the way. Since the people I were talking to were decidedly not scholarly, and no fans of history, it dawned on me that this stuff had been handed down to them from their families, apparently for centuries of their English-Protestant line. Once my eyes opened to that, I began to see how pervasive the attitudes being expressed were and how they worked their way into the general discourse in the country now and throughout our history. From the not so subtle lynching of Irish in Philadelphia and elsewhere, the entire anti-immigration moves to stop the influx of papists from Ireland and Italy and Poland (didn't see much of that when the proportionately larger German Protestant one took place almost a century before) to the bigotry against John Kennedy's run that required him to speak up and say he would not follow the Popes commands if elected, through scathing attacks on catholic practices like large families, down to the present day hatred of Mexicans and the public fervor for news of Priest abusers while comparatively ignoring the more prevalent non-priest molesters. I could go on, but my keyboard is tired. But suffice it to say that when I realized all of that went on, was going on, and was utterly unremarked I decided to point it out whenever it rears its evil little head. Its my little Papist Civil Rights movement, without all the marching or protesting.


I just realized, you're a religion conspiracy theorist and frankly, it's lulzy and embarrassing as a fellow catholic.

good posting from Otega lately...

We are coming for u Father M. say your prayers!!!!!!

Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23
Yello, I agree with you that science cannot explain many fundamental things like where the Big Bang originated from - according to science we shouldn't even exist. However, I do think that it's more logical for most people to believe in atheism than most religions. Sure, there are logical holes in every "religion", but atheism would appear to have the least. I mean, Christiantiy said that the world was only several thousand years old and that the earth was the center of the universe. Both have been proved completely incorrect by empirical evidence. I'm not even an atheist but I believe that it's the most logical choice of "religion" for most learned people.

Wow just had a really nice reply written up and the computer ate it. Here comes the too short to be understandable version.

1) The word for day in ancient language Genesis I was conveyed in was not limited to 24 hours, but included any length of time including ages. So the people who say the bible says the world is 6000 years old are misinterpretting the bible. Genesis is not 7 days, its 7 stages of unspecified periods of time. Since it lays out the geologic and evolutionary formation of earth and life on it, we know its way more than 6000 years.

2) The Bible does not say Earth Centric, Genesis merely gives an Earth Point of View history of the timeline of creation. How it seemed from Earth, which is what we care about. The Sun and Moon were not in the modern form until after the earliest life formed on earth (3.5 Billion years ago first life, 2.5 Billion years sun reaches current luminoscity from much dimmer prior levels, 3.8 billion years Moon stops being molten bumper car from our collision and then mega impacts from other objects). And stellar dust etc from the formation of the solar system, not to mention the moons creation and the moons mega impacts, would have obscured stars from earth. So the timeline is correct, plant life began before those things were fully created.

3) LOL at the notion that God can be disproven by proof reading. The very notion belies the arrogance of the Ungodder mindset. He who made heaven and earth is not going to be struck down by a red editor's pen. Gods word is divine, but its been in mans hands for 4000 years. Typos, translation errors, editing errors, insertions of historical but mundane material and prior mythology, and out right manipulations for political reasons are pretty much guarranteed to have taken place. Thats proof that man is mortal and imperfect, not that God does not exist.

4) Logic does not favor UnGodder theology. Logic and science give no hints to the origin of everything. There are two possible origins of everything. One is that the universe sprang from its own backside, which is quite a magic trick indeed. The other is that God made it, which is also quite a trick. They are equally absurd sounding and both completely mind numbingly beyond our ability to fathom. But its also true that one or the other happened. And it is further true that there is nothing in science or logic to say that the UnGod's case is stronger than Gods. The best the Atheist can hope for is a fifty fifty chance of being right.

5) That being said, the reality is that there are SOME hints even if not scientific, which are the prophets and miracles. People who saw these things first hand have gone to their tortured deaths without recanting them. And millions were convinced, far more than crackpots and fakers have ever been seen to persuade. That IS evidence of a God. It may be shakey, it may be questionable. But along side the utter lack of evidence to the contrary, its infinitely more than the Atheist has on his side.

6) Finally, lets not forget Genesis, when considering the 20 points there in, they are all things that actually exist in the solar systems timeline. What are the odds of that? And with the possible exception of the Sun Moon thing, they are all in their correct place in the time line as well. And there is nothing bizarrely wrong included (no giant eating grapes and spitting out planets) What are the odds of all real, none fake, and nearly all in the correct order of appearance? Thats your odds of there being no God, that Genesis was a random creation that happened to get so close. Hundreds to One. Heck thats both logic AND science or at least math in favor of God there.

But ignore all that. Fifty Fifty is your best case, and we will let you have it.

If you still want to take that bet. Against yourself.

Originally posted by Talcion
Originally posted by yello1

What I will do in reply is italics your points and respond to each in turn


Now, I'm hoping I won't step on your view with this one, but saying UnGod, to me is like saying that only your religion counts..

Nope.

What I am pointing out with that choice of words is two fold - firstly to get past the LOL division of atheists and agnostics. Very few people are actually agnostic in these debates since true agnostics literally do not have an opinion. Most who call themselves agnostic walk and quack like an atheist duck. But the second and prime reason for that choice of words is to call it like it is - atheism is a religion, with a God. Just that the God is a NonGod. Its that because an atheist says there is no God, a point not supported by any logic at all since logic (science etc) can never tell you what it all came from, in the end all science will come to a point beyond which remains only the spiritual choice of faith in what we want to believe brought it all into being (the What Created the Big Bang, and what created THAT chain of turtles on turtles). So for someone to say they KNOW is to say in fact that they have FAITH that there is no God, which is in and of itself no different from having a religion. So believers in the UnGod is how I sum that up.

Which isn't showing tolerance in anyone else's religion

Since I suspect that Gods word is behind to some degree most of man's major religions now and in the past, that is simply not true.

Which is not to say I tolerate them all. I have a mental check list if you will by which I winnow out the patent frauds and psychopaths.

And also, I'm a Theology Minor (I needed something fun to do with English, and be able to argue with my inlaws) So debating religion without getting personal, is something I TRY to pride myself in, although like all other P&R debates, lines gets crossed...

The stronger the opinions the more sensitive the feelings, and someone who took it upon himself to study it is likely to have strong opinions, I suspect. I'ma gonna wager you cross that line more than you think hehe. BScience degree here btw, theology is a new found hobby.

Me I get personal with it only when its personal in return, mostly. See the 500 year old Prod bigotries rant above. Its something I didn't fathom until late in life when some protestants I know (Baptists in particular who seem to have added a Pope hating book to the bible somewhere) went on deep and bizarre rants about Priests and Nuns and what have you for a long and sordid period of time, not bashing me because they had no idea (I am not very religious in day to day activities) and were just talking. The way a racist will go on about blacks when he thinks he is among good old boys.

Anyway as a history buff, it struck me that what I was hearing was pretty much right out of Elizabeth I's playbook on propaganda to support her war with Spain and France during the reformation wars, not to mention the crushing of Catholicism in England and the stealing of its wealth and power along the way. Since the people I were talking to were decidedly not scholarly, and no fans of history, it dawned on me that this stuff had been handed down to them from their families, apparently for centuries of their English-Protestant line. Once my eyes opened to that, I began to see how pervasive the attitudes being expressed were and how they worked their way into the general discourse in the country now and throughout our history. From the not so subtle lynching of Irish in Philadelphia and elsewhere, the entire anti-immigration moves to stop the influx of papists from Ireland and Italy and Poland (didn't see much of that when the proportionately larger German Protestant one took place almost a century before) to the bigotry against John Kennedy's run that required him to speak up and say he would not follow the Popes commands if elected, through scathing attacks on catholic practices like large families, down to the present day hatred of Mexicans and the public fervor for news of Priest abusers while comparatively ignoring the more prevalent non-priest molesters. I could go on, but my keyboard is tired. But suffice it to say that when I realized all of that went on, was going on, and was utterly unremarked I decided to point it out whenever it rears its evil little head. Its my little Papist Civil Rights movement, without all the marching or protesting.

Similarly when an atheist starts attacking those of faith, I will generally step to the plate to knock his silliness out of the park as well. That is because their entire premise is that "science proves I am right" and that their position is logically superior. But the logic is in fact squarely AGAINST them because their position is founded upon not one shred of evidence, and is a subject upon which science has no bearing and never can or will. Thats not usually personal, though, unless they get snide about it.

Either way, I'd really like it if there was no religion personally, then there would be less fighting in the world over who's Deity is correct..

As I said, that is the trendy thing to say, and probably has been since the Crusades among some sets. But the historical scientific reality is that if religion was bad for man, he would not have it.




I commend you on being able to have a religious debate without mud slinging - No offense to you, but that is rarely seen..

Either way - I suppose the reason that everyone slings mud at the Christian religion, is because it is the easiest mark of them all - I'm guilty of it as well, but with my faith - I do have a small problem with Christians anyways (As I said up there somewhere, I'm Wiccan (Olde Style)

I am defending the notion of having Faith. Some of the things done by some people in charge of some faiths at various times in their history was utterly undefensible. But thats politics and power games and money. Not religion.

Originally posted by Otega
italics below

No, untrue.

The reason why people sling mud at the Christian religion is because of it's inherent hypocrisy, which dates back all the way to it's very beginnings. The recent scandal with the priests is just another example in a long, distinguished line of fuck ups by a church that can only do about 50% of it's charter correctly

Drivel. All religions and political parties have practiced hypocrisy. That does not provide a basis for the hate the Catholic church receives.

Whereas centuries of warfare between the Protestant States and the Catholic church most decidedly do.

This is absurd. 4th grade "if...then..." logic.

Um no. Its called evolutionary theory. If Religion was not good for man, some societies would have survived that did not have it. And if it was truly bad for man, then NO societies would have survived that had religion.

No such society exists. Every tribe of man, every people with a history more than a communist revolution old, has a solid core of religious belief in the center of that society's structures.

That means relgion gives a survival benefit to man and his social structures.

Thats science, logic, common sense, reality.

I just realized, you're a religion conspiracy theorist and frankly, it's lulzy and embarrassing as a fellow catholic.

What Conspiracy?

I am talking about bigotry. Bigots do not have to conspire. They just have to be taught stupid things by their parents who were taught stupid things by THEIR parents.

Protestant England and some of its mainland protestant allies were at war with the Church and Catholic nations for centuries. Elizabeth used those wars to vilify Catholics so she could sack monasteries and churches and steal their wealth to fund her wars. To further those goals and to ensure loyalty to her over the Church, she surpressed and tortured catholics to turn what was a mostly catholic nation into a mostly protestant one in the process. And to allow all of THAT to go over, she made up nonsense attacks upon Catholics to dehumanize them, the same way Nazis made up crap about Jews, and Slavers about Blacks etc. Hate mongering. She did it, and it took.

That is history. Not conspiracy.

Just as the protestant reaction to the Irish and Italian and Polish immigrations are a matter of historic record. Nothing I said was being made up, thats all stuff you can read in a book if you are a reader. Probably online as well.

That history has left marks in the minds of many of our protestant neighbors. They still buy into the hate.

Thats truth as well.

How widespread it is I do not know.

But given the level of hate turned against the Catholic church by the media and folks in general, I suspect those attitudes are pretty common. Because whats happened doesn't warrant the reaction, at all.

And yet that is still not a conspiracy. If you think so, I suggest you look conspiracy up in a dictionary.